Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

B0jangles

Remember when the record companies realised their old business model of printing and selling physical media was under threat and instead of accepting that the world had fundamentally changed, they tried to sue individuals to try to stop digital distribution?

Remember how well that worked?

That's what Trump is doing for the old fossil fuel producers in the US.

10 years time, the rest of the world will have moved ahead by leaps and bounds in energy production by other means and the US'll be stuck playing catch-up.

swampgas

B0jangles wrote: »

Remember when the record companies realised their old business model of printing and selling physical media was under threat and instead of accepting that the world had fundamentally changed, they tried to sue individuals to try to stop digital distribution?

Remember how well that worked?

That's what Trump is doing for the old fossil fuel producers in the US.

10 years time, the rest of the world will have moved ahead by leaps and bounds in energy production by other means and the US'll be stuck playing catch-up.

Trump and many of the old men running oil and coal companies are in their 60s or 70s. I really don't think they care much about what happens in 10 or 20 years as long as they can maximise their personal wealth in the short term.

B0jangles

swampgas wrote: »

Trump and many of the old men running oil and coal companies are in their 60s or 70s. I really don't think they care much about what happens in 10 or 20 years as long as they can maximise their personal wealth in the short term.

Oh I know it's driven by the incomprehensible greed of the old and already incredibly wealthy.
I'm just pointing out how essentially pointless it is, and how much it will hurt the US long-term to those in this thread who seem to believe it's a good idea for anyone who isn't an oil/gas/coal company owner.

Leroy42

I have often wondered why anyone argues against renewables. Taking climate change out of the equation (this seems to be a contentious issue for some) but in any other business if you gave people the chance to get cheaper (it will never be free but should be cheaper than the current oil/gas) product that did the same thing they would jump at the chance.

Sure, presently it won't solve all the needs (although Elon Musk's latest deployment of batteries to store solar power in Australia is pointing to a significant advancement) but most people renewables would be sufficient for a large portion of their needs.

Imagine the savings to industry and citizens with massively reduced energy costs? Sure the likes of Exxon etc will push hard against it, but I don't understand why the general public are not demanding it more.

PopePalpatine

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have often wondered why anyone argues against renewables. Taking climate change out of the equation (this seems to be a contentious issue for some) but in any other business if you gave people the chance to get cheaper (it will never be free but should be cheaper than the current oil/gas) product that did the same thing they would jump at the chance.

Sure, presently it won't solve all the needs (although Elon Musk's latest deployment of batteries to store solar power in Australia is pointing to a significant advancement) but most people renewables would be sufficient for a large portion of their needs.

Imagine the savings to industry and citizens with massively reduced energy costs? Sure the likes of Exxon etc will push hard against it, but I don't understand why the general public are not demanding it more.

Because it's become a partisan issue, ever since Jimmy Carter stuck some solar panels on the White House and Reagan tore them back down.

Akrasia

Solar is the future. The technology to make flexible printable PV out of organic materials is almost ready to roll out commercially.

We could see ubiquitous solar installations at very low cost

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/EF/Areas/Solar/Photovoltaics

Water John

Yes, Perovskite looks like the tech that will win out. One can only imagine the effect in warm climates where the high use of electricity is for A/C.
Thanks for that link.

FreudianSlippers

Akrasia wrote: »

Solar is the future. The technology to make flexible printable PV out of organic materials is almost ready to roll out commercially.

We could see ubiquitous solar installations at very low cost

https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/EF/Areas/Solar/Photovoltaics

A real subsidised solar programme in Ireland (I know there is a small tax break already but it's not enough) would be a massive benefit to the economy IMO.

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A real subsidised solar programme in Ireland (I know there is a small tax break already but it's not enough) would be a massive benefit to the economy IMO.

im waiting for the day. Ive 20 meter long South facing roof primed for it.

Pepefrogok

China has broken the rules and used state funding for panel makers so they could flood the market and get a global monopoly on a future massively important industry, trump is only doing what Obama did! Obama also put tariffs on Chinese panels! and upholding global trade law. It's a stepped tariff that will reduce pretty quickly and hopefully give American company's the chance to compete.

listermint

Pepefrogok wrote: »

China has broken the rules and used state funding for panel makers so they could flood the market and get a global monopoly on a future massively important industry, trump is only doing what Obama did and upholding global trade law. It's a stepped tariff that will reduce pretty quickly and hopefully give American company's the chance to compete.

Broken what rules ?

Specifically

Pepefrogok

listermint wrote: »

Broken what rules ?

Specifically

It's in the sentence you highlighted, state funding, so by WTO rules trump is entitled to apply tariffs.

reece289

Pepefrogok wrote: »

It's in the sentence you highlighted, state funding, so by WTO rules trump is entitled to apply tariffs.

Isn't the tax breaks Trump enacted also state aid then?

Pepefrogok

reece289 wrote: »

Isn't the tax breaks Trump enacted also state aid then?

No

reece289

Pepefrogok wrote: »

No

Erm, ok.

No reason why or such. Hmm.

Surely if the tax breaks weren't to help companies become more competitive then they are only there to create more wealth for the shareholders?

Professor Moriarty

reece289 wrote: »

Erm, ok.

No reason why or such. Hmm.

Surely if the tax breaks weren't to help companies become more competitive then they are only there to create more wealth for the shareholders?

Impossible. The Donald is a man of the people. A rich kid celebrity failed businessman 'billionaire' would never do such a thing. Perish the thought.

Pepefrogok

reece289 wrote: »

Erm, ok.

No reason why or such. Hmm.

Surely if the tax breaks weren't to help companies become more competitive then they are only there to create more wealth for the shareholders?

Do you not understand the difference between tax and state aid?

ECO_Mental

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/23/tony-perkins-evangelicals-donald-trump-stormy-daniels-216498

Well the holier than thou god evangelical christian's think hey its ok that my President went off and rode a pron star only a couple of months after he had a bady with his now wife (and the rest of the s**thole stuff with women he has done). Sure that's grand didn't he give us a SCOTUS etc etc.

These bible bashing A-Holes drive me mad :mad::mad::mad: preaching to all of us not to be sinners and pretending to be purer than freshly driven snow but deep down they are nothing but frauds. But I suppose it all makes sense following a fraud of a president. Its amazing what moral standards they will cast aside.. Roy Moore etc another fine example of bible bashing logic:mad::mad:

Trent Houseboat

The hypocrisy of the traditional family values losers and Fox News is pathetic, but I really don't care who the president is porking. In France I don't think it would even be a story.

Of course the lies and covering up would question the administration's credibility if it had any.

demfad

Tell me how wrote: »

Do it by email. Don't waste the price of a call.

Tell us how you get on please.

(regarding allegations claiming money laundering in Doonbeg to value of 100s millions)

"Dear

---

I am directed by Detective Superintendent---- -- to acknowledge receipt of your email dated today and 19/01/18 . This matter has been recorded at the Bureau and forwarded to the relevant unit for their consideration and attention.



Please quote file reference number

---

in any future correspondence."

They are looking into it. Ill check with them in a few weeks.

reece289

Pepefrogok wrote: »

Do you not understand the difference between tax and state aid?

We are talking about tax breaks, removal of tax, not implementation. In order to help American companies and America.

State interference in the marketplace.

Same thing.

Really Interested

reece289 wrote: »

We are talking about tax breaks, removal of tax, not implementation. In order to help American companies and America.

State interference in the marketplace.

Same thing.

Not sure a lawful tariff is state aid as per WTO rules.

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf

Pepefrogok

reece289 wrote: »

We are talking about tax breaks, removal of tax, not implementation. In order to help American companies and America.

State interference in the marketplace.

Same thing.

All American company's will be charged the same rate, under WTO this is ok, countries can set their rate to 0% if they so wish as long as it applies to all, what you cannot do is give specific companies sweetheart deals i.e Ireland and Apple or give cash/loans/investment to companies so they have an advantage in the global market.

Chips Lovell

Hi folks,
Please remember to read the charter. Serious and substantive posts only please.

Thanks

listermint

Pepefrogok wrote: »

All American company's will be charged the same rate, under WTO this is ok, countries can set their rate to 0% if they so wish as long as it applies to all, what you cannot do is give specific companies sweetheart deals i.e Ireland and Apple or give cash/loans/investment to companies so they have an advantage in the global market.

Yes you can. You can fund startups and various industries using government money which international law are you referring to exactly

demfad

demfad wrote: »

(regarding allegations claiming money laundering in Doonbeg to value of 100s millions)

"Dear

---

I am directed by Detective Superintendent---- -- to acknowledge receipt of your email dated today and 19/01/18 . This matter has been recorded at the Bureau and forwarded to the relevant unit for their consideration and attention.



Please quote file reference number

---

in any future correspondence."

They are looking into it. Ill check with them in a few weeks.

Unfortunately I don't believe anything will happen over this. Fair play for reporting it though.

demfad

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't believe anything will happen over this. Fair play for reporting it though.

I believe that with the IT report at least they should be investigating which means it is not easily ignorable.

I saw a snippet on twitter that someone had cut out about it, which drew my attention to it.

The MSM here had not read the transcript. This is symptomatic if the crises with media now.

The way International stories are dissemanated now is by a central source. MSM news draws only from this well for non domestic stories. Only massive stories make that central source. Everything depends on the reliability of theses sources and they too judge stories on how 'big' they are (how popular) rather than on their credibility or importance.

Irish MSM view the media crisis in US and UK as if they are somehow immune, as if its another story.

Investigative journalism should be in a golden age with so much (true and verifiable) data available on the internet and so much to be investigated. Stories are easy to find. And Reuters etc will not bring you a Trump-Doonbeg story and a big story on twitter may not be an important story.

spacecoyote

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/jeff-sessions-robert-mueller-interview/index.html

Appears Mueller has had Sessions in for a chat

Leroy42

Pepefrogok wrote: »

All American company's will be charged the same rate, under WTO this is ok, countries can set their rate to 0% if they so wish as long as it applies to all, what you cannot do is give specific companies sweetheart deals i.e Ireland and Apple or give cash/loans/investment to companies so they have an advantage in the global market.

Unless it's Carrier of course!

What this tariff means is that the working American will now have to pay more for the standard products. And that US companies are protected from external competition, therefore reducing the need to compete.

The only winners here will be US companies profits.

Quin_Dub

In relation to the Solar energy tariffs , the consensus from the industry is that they will cost something in the order of 23,000 jobs.

A very small minority of the jobs in the renewal sector are in the manufacture side of things , most are in Installation/Service etc. so the tariffs will increase the price of the average installation thereby reducing volumes , hitting jobs..

Or in simpler terms - Making people more likely to stick with the Fossil fuel based solutions they have right now..

So - Cui Bono ??